Trump and assabiyah

In the days of its greatness, the Roman Republic had assabiyah

“Horatius,” quoth the Consul,
“As thou sayest, so let it be.”
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.

Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.

Baron Macaulay’s poem neglects to explicitly mention, but takes for granted that the reader knows, that all three were aristocratic officers, and that the two that fought on Horatio’s right and left were lieutenant generals. This is reminiscent of Britain in the days of its greatness, when aristocratic officers led from in front, charging into battle in costumes that conspicuously marked them as targets, and engaging the aristocratic officers of the opposing army in personal hand to hand combat, for which glorious privilege they paid extraordinarily large amounts of money.

Our political class hates and despises the white working class, as much as it hates and despises soldiers, cops, and security guards. Democrats are disgusted by the fact that the white working class votes for them. If Hillary could turn her white working class voters away from the voting booth with whips she would, and a major reason the Republican establishment is horrified by Trump is that he is bringing white working class voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. They would rather lose to Clinton than win with the unspeakably vulgar Trump.

Trump regularly pulls stunts that our chattering classes do not understand, and therefore ignorantly ridicule, much as the New York Times ridicules Sarah Palin for using sentence structures that exceed the comprehension and reading level of the New York Times staff. In Trump’s recent victory celebration, he had piles of Trump products on display. “What is this?” asked our chatterers. “An infomercial?”

Trump was making the point that capitalists did not just grab their wealth from the secret stash before the rest of us could find the secret stash, but rather organize the production of stuff – that capitalists are rich because, in substantial part, they create wealth.

In another stunt, he called up two of his black supporters and campaigners, the Stump For Trump women, Diamond and Silk, and introduced them as having made themselves rich.

This is, subliminally, the classic fascist message – forget about class differences, let us work to make America Great Again. It is the reverse of Sanders’ message, yet appeals to the same people. One is a message of envy and covetousness, the other calls on us to be greater than that. And to the extent that the chattering classes understand Trump’s message, they hate him for it and rightly call him fascist.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 23:38 and is filed under culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

53 Responses to “Trump and assabiyah”

I was listening to an NPR broadcast today (know your enemy) when a talking head came on to declare that supporters of Trump were largely devoted to authoritarianism and that Trump sent messages that resonated with such people. The first thing that came to mind was “Sanders wants to create a revolution in government and markets.” What could be more authoritarian (or totalitarian) than that end result?

Unfortunately, based on a major meeting at a private island resort this weekend between billionaire globalists and GOP insiders, the elite has it in for Trump and they will not allow the rabble to elect this guy.
The fix is in. My God, even Sulzberger attended this meeting. That’s the Sulzberger who publishes a little tabloid called the New York Times.
More than 50 private jets were counted at the resort, and all bets are off… they are not going to let Trump in.
The velvet glove is being removed from the iron fist and it’s aimed straight at The Donald.

If the alt-right / NRx is to formulate an alternative to the Cathedral based on aristocratic hierarchy then it must be a wholly elitist one, and as such I find your willingness to fawn over venture capitalists who have no problem importing countless immigrants for cheap votes and labour slightly disturbing.

Part of Trump’s charm does in fact come from the fact that he’s a scoundrel, but it only adds to his charm because he is 1) not a moron and 2) knows what he’s talking about. A lionization of a Sarah Palin, who is of the Christian lower-order class of whites who deny evolution and thus deny an important part of the obvious case for natural hierarchy, is as bad as a lionization of the Hollywood degenerate or the ad exec who exploits the worst tendencies of the lowest common denominator. One need only look at the state of modern art, film, television, and literature to understand what I’m talking about.

Democracy + capitalism will always spiral into what we have now because it’s an unbridled race to the bottom. If first aid is to be applied to our dying empire it does have to be done through the gauze of fascism and hopefully if Trump does make it into White House he is serious about his claims. Either way democracy must be dismantled as it is a suicide pact with stupidity and capitalism must be reformulated in order to not pander to the lowest common denominator.

“We live in the era of total power centralisation minus any and all authority. That is why there is no aristocratic class today. None at all. In today’s world, true nobility ends like di Lampedusa or Mishima.”

Keep in mind also that he will need to build alliances, which likely will include the likes of Palin or maybe worse. In some sense, however, denying evolution outwardly but financing science, including molecular bio and genetic research, may not be such a bad outcome. If it requires making it into a security clearance requiring program, then it’s actually even a huge plus: more potential for cool things (like genetic engineering and getting it out of hands of the “worldwide scientific community” i.e. the stealing Chinese).

I agree that making it into a program that requires a security clearance is essential but it hinges on the condition that the people doling out the security clearances can’t be from a group of people who have a historical background of denying what is patently obvious about human hierarchy. Replacing the Rationalwiki crowd with the creationist crowd is just switching out the neo-mafia for the old mafia, and it explicitly denies the increasingly obvious truth that the feminist New Atheist crowd are just the kids who grew up in protestant families and threw away all of the good bits of Christianity (tradition, patriarchy, the nuclear family, etc.) and kept the shit bits (nanny-tier moralizing, holiness spirals, status-signalling).

Sure, no disagreement. It will be challenging to find good people. It might require working with private firms, even on managerial level. Hmm… Might be better career path than Wall St though, for a lot of physics and applied math PhDs

You don’t understand the teleology of eugenics. The purpose of eugenics is not an eliminationist “quality spiral”. The objective is the amelioration of *all* societal strata within a given population, the underclass as well as the upperclass. Yes, some folks are inherently no-good, and should be eliminated from the gene pool completely. Say, these are 10% of a population. But after these are uprooted, you don’t need to *keep* eliminating 10% of the population every now and then. First, you can encourage the superior to simply outbreed the inferior. Second, technology would eventually allow genetic engineering to uplift everyone, obviating whatever necessity there was to eliminate the lower classes.

Crudely speaking, eventually we could have niggers with an IQ of 200 and not an ounce of aggression. Of course right now, most niggers should hang from trees, but after purging these completely, there’s no longer any point to hanging from trees those are who “next in line”. In other words, some societies can do without 60% of their members, others need only to do away with 20%, but then you don’t need a spiral of elimination, but to develop the means to enhance the qualities of everyone left after the total undesirables are gone.

anyone who writes about politics in terms of elites or class or whatever and doesn’t recognize the importance of normal White men just sounds retarded

it’s not about percentages or income levels

it’s about alphaness, intelligence and agency

no effort is required to prevent men with low alphaness, intelligence, and agency from breeding. a lot of effort is required to subvert things so that those men can breed. minimal effort would be required to force them into marriages with women of commensurate quality, but sterilize them.

Re peppermint, I never downplayed the role normal white people play in civilization, I said that lower-IQ religious people cannot be allowed into the upper echelon of government roles. I am more than happy to associate with and work with these people but if we have a situation in which we do manage to take the reigns of civilization and the religious person next to me decides the next thing to do is use our new position to actualize his pet religious prophecies, we then have a problem.

If we accept the axioms that 1) we will always have low IQ people and religion of some stripe is needed, and 2) we will have to welcome religious people who share roughly the same views and goals as us, then it follows that the formulation of a relatively pro-white religion is needed, and this will have to be a pagan one. Christianity is not for whites, it is a diluted offshoot of Judaism that champions submissiveness and is inclusive rather than exclusive.

The only problem is excluding those people who have drunk the kool aid too hard (instead of viewing religion as a necessary tool for social cohesion) from powerful positions in government and possibly even the aristocracy.

If it’s the answer to the yearning to be part of something greater than yourself, that thing is your family and nation.

If it’s a sense of what reality is and why we’re here, that’s answered by evolution.

If it’s a system of rewarding good behavior and punishing misbehavior through awarding social status, the only sane thing to do is award status for building up your nation and family, and try to avoid awarding status for like prayers or holding meetings or whatever.

Anyway, governmental authority needs to be personalized to ensure accountability.

If it’s a system of rewarding good behavior and punishing misbehavior through awarding social status, the only sane thing to do is award status for building up your nation and family, and try to avoid awarding status for like prayers or holding meetings or whatever.

Yes, that is one reason why open entry into the priesthood of the state religion is a really bad idea.

Do you need God to tell you explicitly and in no uncertain terms “thou shalt not fuck niggers?” This argument is stupid. Religion is not supposed to teach you racism, just as it’s not supposed to teach you science in general (racism is pure unadulterated science). Your own eyes should suffice to teach you all the racism in the world. Obviously you should not let your daughters have sex with apes, neither should you penetrate the vagina of a sheboon for reproductive purposes, and this is true regardless of whether or not God exists and what His preferred religion is.

This whole alt-right idea of “we need our deity to tell us that race is not actually a social construct, otherwise how would we know for sure?” is one of the ‘tardiest of them all. No, you don’t need to hear “thou shall not race mix” for the same reason God won’t tell you “thou shall not jump from the roof of thy house”, if you’re too stupid to figure this out on your own then be damned.

The real issue is how nationality is defined. Universal religions, counter-intuitively, have no conception of “religious community equals nation”, so you can have an actual real nation and an actual real religion and there’s no conflict of interests between the two. On the other hand, a religion that states that “religious community equals nation”, like Judaism, is bound to be filled with mongrelism, because niggers, gooks, spics, bindis and cameljockeys can always convert to your religion and then become, by definition, part of your nation. The anti-Semites who claim that Judaism preserves racial purity better than other religions should have their brains checked (by Josef Mengele). Seriously, look at the Jews: absolutely zero racial purity among them, zero.

So if you want to preserve racial purity, you have to be part of a religion that does NOT state that “religious community equals nation”. That leaves you only with universal religions – religions not concerned at all with nationality and that therefore, ideally, do not hinder racial preservation. One example of a universal religion is Progressivism – but Progressivism is totally dumb because one of its tenets is that all men were created equal, so it actually does hinder racial preservation. On the other hand, most other universal religions, actually all universal religions which aren’t Progressivism, do not believe that all men were created equal. Christianity for instance can coexist with both racism and anti-racism (much as it can coexist with both heliocentrism and geocentrism), and can’t be blamed for either of those.

Adolf Hitler may have been the incarnation of Wotan, but he evidently did not worship Wotan, because he didn’t have to. You don’t need a “pro-White religion”, you need to be pro-White regardless of religion and, so it seems, you also need a religion – and it better be a good religion. Recently I browsed neorxn dot com, like I do every day, and came across an article by esoterictrad titled “the maxim of the family”, which maxim is that “The family with the patriarchal father at its head best enables successful civilization.” Couldn’t agree more, my thoughts exactly:

Now does anyone here thinks that Paganism, with the attendant worship of FEMALE deities, could be more Patriarchal than Christianity or Islam? What a joke, hah. You can’t literally, non-metaphorically worship vaginas and simultaneously extol the virtues of total Patriarchy and religious masculinity. Wanna know what religious masculinity sounds like?:

“Judas said, “You have told us this out of the mind of truth. When we pray, how should we pray?”
The Lord said, “Pray in the place where there is no woman.”
Matthew said, “‘Pray in the place where there is no woman,’ he tells us, meaning ‘Destroy the works of womanhood,’ not because there is any other manner of birth, but because they will cease giving birth.”
Mary said, “They will never be obliterated.”
The Lord said, “Who knows that they will not dissolve and … [2 lines missing]?”
Judas said to Matthew, “The works of womanhood will dissolve […]”

From “The Dialogue of the Savior”, an obscure Gnostic text that probably reflects the original Christianity. Now how’s this for muh-sogyny? Perfect, I believe. Still not convinced? Gospel of Thomas:

“Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t
deserve life.”
Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven.””

A woman can’t make herself male (FtM trannies don’t count), albeit Jesus who is omnipotent can make her male in a spiritual sense, and anyway Jesus is in Heavens now so get lost, lesbians. The Essenes and Qumranites were basically MGTOWs. Anyway, where I’m going with this esoteric midrash is to demonstrate that within Christianity there are masculine forces, femaleness-abhorring forces, and that these can be put to use when building a civilization. Is Paganism as femaleness-abhorring as Christianity or Islam? Don’t think so. Wicca is totally pozzed for this very reason. Civilization is a masculine force whereas bare nature is feminine, and civilization restrains the bare nature the same way Patriarchs should restrain their women. The moment you switch from civilization-building to nature-worship is the moment you lose your balls.

The works of womanhood will dissolve. By whom will they be destroyed – that’s what you ought to be asking. That’s how you choose the right religion.

On the other hand, a religion that states that “religious community equals nation”, like Judaism, is bound to be filled with mongrelism, because niggers, gooks, spics, bindis and cameljockeys can always convert to your religion and then become, by definition, part of your nation.

That problem results from giving a visa, a vote, and welfare to anyone who converts to your state religion.

Don’t do that.

The only advantage of converting to the official state religion should be respectability and the opportunity to get governmental and quasi governmental positions, and so, converting to the official state religion should only bring material advantages to those in the top few percent.

Not sure to whom your little rant was supposed to be addressed Jack, but if it was addressed toward me it should be pretty fucking obvious that I’m not a fan of religion and i don’t “need religion to tell me” anything. If addressed to just the populace in general, as in “why do people need religion to tell them ___” then you seriously underestimate the stupidity of the average, which is a curious thing to do on a neoreactionary blog.

Getting rid of all religion whatsoever will not undo thousands of years of development toward the human need for spirituality and ritual. These things have been around for more millennia than you and I have been alive. That you or I don’t need religion is beside the point; some people do, ie people who lack intelligence and agency. I’m not condoning it, I am acknowledging it as a fact of existence and as an aspect of the human condition of low IQ people, and it’s better to concoct one from the ground up as a tool for social cohesion than leave it to the nonsense and exploitability of an Abrahamic religion.

>what is religion? If it’s the answer to the yearning to be part of something greater than yourself, that thing is your family and nation.

You don’t have to call it “religion” if you don’t want to, you can call it an organized and ordered system of spiritual ritual if you want, and you can even take the “spiritual” out because at this point we’re just splitting hairs and arguing semantics. The point is to take the good parts of, for example, Christianity (tradition, patriarchy, the nuclear family) and excise the shit bits, ie most everything else. Better to do this with a new one that glorifies intelligence, masculinity etc. from the ground up than to continue on with Christianity, which is just Judaism in wolf’s clothing.

>If it’s a sense of what reality is and why we’re here, that’s answered by evolution.If it’s a sense of what reality is and why we’re here, that’s answered by evolution.

Evolution does tell us what we are and why we’re here, but it doesn’t tell us why we should continue, which is where sprititualism comes into play, unless of course you take your normative values from “eat, fuck, reproduce, die” and that’s the end of it.

Again, I’m not personally condoning religion of any kind myself, but it is an absolutely necessary social tool. The difference is between people who understand this and who have gotten drunk off the kool aid (“God is actually real”).

>If it’s a system of rewarding good behavior and punishing misbehavior through awarding social status, the only sane thing to do is award status for building up your nation and family, and try to avoid awarding status for like prayers or holding meetings or whatever.

Unless you’re willing to spend an obscene amount of time, resources, and effort being on the ready to put a boot into people’s faces, which would require a military of size larger than the populace itself, you need some form of culture to stand as a guideline.

» Getting rid of all religion whatsoever will not undo thousands of years of development toward the human need for spirituality and ritual.

Ritual and spirituality go back further than that.

Spirituality, i.e. the need to feel like you’re part of something greater, is answered by your family and your nation, or, in the case of cattle, your herd.

Ritual, as in doing things repeatedly that have no immediate benefit, also developed among ants that farm various things. The benefits can either be explained, or the people can simply be ordered to do it, no need for lying.

The implication of “every now and then we’ll “get rid” of the lowest 10%” is that, after all the undesirables and their inferior genes are finally extirpated forever, to keep eliminating the lowest 10% out of autistic adherence to principle, it is decent, functioning, non-criminal people who will have to be eliminated. That’s obviously not right:

“Sorry sir, but according to our estimations, your grandpa now belongs to the lowest 10% of society in terms of genetic quality. Wherefore we shall disembowel him very soon and incinerate his ghastly geriatric cadaver without delay, or maybe just throw him off of a steep cliff (depending on how nice is the weather; the sunshine is just splendid this spring, don’t you agree?), but perhaps due to irrational sentimentalism — emotions ain’t real, dawg — you’d like to tell him how much you love him, and that he’ll never be forgotten in your heart, before we disentrail the old man???”

As I said, such a “quality spiral” is totally unnecessary. Once the no-gooders are disposed of, the high should be able to cooperate with the low to the benefit of everyone, and the proliferation and cultivation of high quality genes among the populace can be guaranteed using different and novel technologies (sperm donations can be restricted so as to permit only men with IQ 150+ to ejaculate into those plastic jars, for instance) without resorting to periodic butchering or even sterilizing of decent humans. It’s just not necessary once the no-gooders descend to Tartarus; butchering and/or sterilizing the lowest 10% from time to time would be regarded as an outright anti-social measure after the undesirables are all impaled; for even the lowest 10% are worthy and should breed as much as they see fit presuming no dumb thugs are found among them.

also it makes it sound like evolution has only been running for a few thousand years. Every base pair is where it is for a bunch of reasons.

Everyone will be a lot better behaved when the government stops giving incentives for bad behavior.

Governments have tried to eliminate nogoodniks for centuries. How much did the Khmer Rouge damage the genetic capital in Cambodia or the USSR the genetic capital in Russia? Besides destroying the German transplant population.

>The implication of “every now and then we’ll “get rid” of the lowest 10%” is that, after all the undesirables and their inferior genes are finally extirpated forever, to keep eliminating the lowest 10% out of autistic adherence to principle, it is decent, functioning, non-criminal people who will have to be eliminated.

You are assuming that the inferior people that get rid of, are gotten rid of because they are somehow immoral, as opposed to their being inferior. But this isn’t how it works.

What you need is a process that efficiently weeds out people on the bottom, thereby creating space for the children of the superior who have regressed to the mean, but who are nevertheless superior to the people that have gotten weeded out. If you keep this process going for long enough, then you achieve real progress in your society.

We need to discourage people at the bottom from reproducing, while encouraging fertility at the top. Which means we discourage, demean, denigrate, and actively prevent our smartest women from becoming doctors and lawyers and such, at least not until they have first had their kids and their kids have grown a bit.

Abolishing support for immoral women with children, abolishing the role of uncle Sam as father and husband, will ensure heavily eugenic male fertility.

>You are assuming that the inferior people that get rid of, are gotten rid of because they are somehow immoral, as opposed to their being inferior.

No, that’s the whole point: you don’t necessarily have to get rid of people who are inferior compared to the rest of society *merely* due to them being inferior; if you incentivize the superior to out-breed (preferably by a large margin) the inferior, and if you allow some superior genes to, gradually, “trickle down” to the inferiors, then you achieve eugenics without any need to ever “weed out” anyone. Of course it’s in your interests to decimate the no-gooders, but with the right measures (harsh measures) these would eventually disappear, and so will the need to decimate people within one’s society for eugenical purposes.

The reality is that the lower classes will always have a tendency towards making irresponsible breeding choices. Obviously it is in everyone’s interests that the upper classes out-breed the lower classes, but you’re never going to convince the lower classes of that. Hence, you’re going to have to cull of the lower classes every generation. This is a process that is going to have to go on indefinitely, because if the process stops, the lower classes will take advantage, as they are doing today, and begin to breed irresponsibly, thereby leading to the erasure of the gains that were previously made.

(Just to be clear, “inferior” in this context should be used in an entirely relative sense. For example, someone with an IQ of 200 would obviously be superior in our society. Yet, in a society with an average IQ of 300, that person with an IQ of 200 is also obviously inferior, and thus should be culled, just as the lower classes in our society should be culled.)

Obviously it is in everyone’s interests that the upper classes out-breed the lower classes, but you’re never going to convince the lower classes of that. Hence, you’re going to have to cull of the lower classes every generation.

Abolish welfare and restrain smart women from careers. Will fix it.

Give upper class men status in a form that women are capable of registering.

There won’t be any undeserving poor, though, in the sense that people won’t want there to be anyone opting out of social assistance through bad behavior that isn’t bad enough to go to jail, and finding ways to cause trouble like sleeping outside and defecating in alleyways.

If they can’t go to jail, or get committed semi-voluntarily to some kind of monastic life, then they’ll be on the dole, which people who have jobs and wives won’t resent provided that they’re not permitted to reproduce while on the dole.

Of course, we would prefer if they could be sold as slaves. And if slaves were permitted as many children as their master would permit, they would also prefer to be sold as slaves.

Since WWI “fascism” has become a buzzword used by certain people to refer to anything to the right of neoliberalism, but I assume jim is using it in the sense of a nationalistic, authoritarian government that does not approve of any business activity that goes against the economic interests of the nation. Historically it is explicitly anti-communistic, see Mussolini.

America has a capitalist tradition going all the way back to the Pilgrims, who, disenchanted by their disastrous experiment with socialism, concluded that capitalism was the will of God, which conclusion still has substantial influence on America and on progressivism, and has prevented progressivism from self destructing as rapidly as other branches of leftism.

Trump intends to scrap Obamacare ASAP and replace it with a pretty free market health care system. He intends a considerable step toward tax reform and to audit the Fed and to end lots of regulatory BS. And not only that, he has the stones and the credentials to actually accomplish some of this. Also, he’s not intrusive in personal life, for example abortion is OK with him. So it seems that Trump as a matter of practice would be likely to make the US as a whole much more free market than it is now or than any of his competitors would plausibly achieve.

“Trump is the anti-war candidate”, as Syrian Girl tweeted. He’s come out against every war since Serbia (on Larry King, back in the day) at least, only candidate who might plausibly stand up to the military industrial complex and end this endless war.

So while its perfectly reasonable to say Trump is Nationalist, I don’t see why its reasonable to call him fascist at all, especially as its a loaded term.

National socialism is a particular form of fascism. The best example of a successful fascist state was Franco’s Spain, which was national syndicalism, rather than national socialism. In practice, national syndicalism was initially quite socialist, which, as usual, turned out to be a disaster – not as bad as Venezuela, but pretty bad. After a bit Franco wised up, and in the 1950s Spain became reasonably capitalist, while still remaining arguably fascist.

That Trump is bringing in the White Working Class -which was clearly up for grabs and someone grabbed the Brass Ring of Power, Trump – this begs the following question: Who and what else is up for grabs?

We can start with Cops, Soldiers [who come from the same families and are often the same people]. I can vouch both are sick of abuse and betrayal, and when a cop gets shot by BLM you’ve just shot a Veteran or Serving Military’s family member.

[Frankly if we get anymore generational they’ll be regulations against cousin marriage soon.]